Home Affairs Minister Clare ONeil will shortly (possibly on 27 April) release a new migration strategy. This follows a review of the migration system led by former Secretary of PM&C Martin Parkinson and a review of visa integrity by former Police Commissioner Christine Nixon.

But before we examine what should be in a migration strategy, its worth considering the recent history of this.

In March 2019, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison issued A plan for Australias future population. The plan actually said very little about Australias future population despite the headline. It largely focussed on minor tinkering of regional visas to bust congestion. In the subsequent 2019 Budget, the infamous back in black budget, former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg used a long-term net migration assumption of 268,000 per annum and fantastic assumptions of long-term economic growth to try and show the Stage 3 tax cuts were affordable they werent.

From 2015 to 2018, former Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton unilaterally reduced the migration program while allowing net migration to rise strongly, illegally limited grant of partner visas, significantly reduced use of regional and state nominated visas, made the employer sponsored visa system international uncompetitive, allowed a massive increase in visa backlogs and blow out in processing times, sat by while we experienced the biggest labour trafficking scam in Australias history and introduced guidelines for ministerial intervention that the High Court has found were illegal.

To his credit, Dutton never claimed this was part of any grand migration strategy or plan. Long-term policy thinking is not Duttons fort.

Former Immigration Minister Scott Morrison (2013-14) focused almost entirely on stopping the boats even though these had largely already stopped due to the second Rudd Governments re-introduction of offshore processing. Awarding himself a trophy for having stopped the boats was classic Scotty from Marketing.

From a broader policy perspective, Immigration Minister Morrison actually did very little but was actually positive about immigration. While there was a decline in net migration during the Abbott Government, for which Abbott subsequently sought credit, the fall was largely due to a sharp rise in unemployment that led to an increase in Australian and NZ citizen departures and a decline in returns.

In 2010, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appointed Tony Burke as Australias first Minister for Population and tasked him to develop a population plan. The plan focussed mainly on sustainable development policies and very little on Australias future population directions or on migration policy. It was largely about neutralising comments Rudd had made earlier about a big Australia as well as deflecting attention from the surge in boat arrivals after Rudd dismantled Howards Pacific Solution. Both of these issues were being attacked relentlessly by the Coalition.

Key features of a migration strategy

Given this very sad history, what should we look for in a sensible migration strategy? In my view a good migration strategy should have the following features:

Firstly, it should outline short and long-term migration and population directions and explain the underlying rationale for these. The starting point should be the long-term decline in natural increase of Australias population, the rate of population ageing and the current blow out in net migration. How this will be managed as we emerge from covid-era immigration policy settings and face the prospect of a sharply weaker labour market should be a policy focus.

For the longer-term, the strategy should clearly indicate whether Government agrees with Treasurys long-term net migration assumption of 235,000 per annum. If so, the strategy should explain the policy rationale for this level of net migration, how this will be delivered including in terms of the composition of net migration and immigration policy settings. If the Government does not agree, it should explain why and what its long-term net migration target is.

Either way, the migration strategy should explain the long-term implications of the Governments preferred long-term net migration level, including in terms of our long-term population size, age structure and geographic distribution as well as impact on other key policy areas including economic growth, productivity, labour force participation, skills development, budget impact, environmental sustainability, infrastructure, housing, congestion, and so forth.

Secondly, the migration strategy should address major flaws in visa design to align with overall policy objectives and delivery of the Governments long-term net migration target. While visa simplification should be part of this, getting policy outcomes right through the right set of visa criteria is much more important. Some of the policy issues that need to be addressed are discussed here in terms of the migration system and here in term of visa integrity.

Overall coherence of the visa system should be another objective to deal with piecemeal changes of the past as well as the splintering of responsibility for immigration policy across multiple portfolios.

Media reports suggest that the migration strategy will include abolition of:

• Investor visas which are little more than a buy retirement in Australia scheme (at a very cheap price) that were first introduced by the Rudd/Gillard Governments. I wrote recommending abolition of these in 2018; and
• the Global Talent Independent visa introduced by former Immigration Minister David Coleman. I wrote on the folly of this visa in 2020.

Thirdly, the migration strategy should deal with administration of the visa system including issues such as long-term funding of both visa processing and immigration compliance; development of IT support systems; staff training and a client service culture. The need for visa processing and visa compliance functions to work jointly is essential something that appears to have been lost with the creation of Australian Border Force (ABF) and the de-prioritisation of immigration compliance.

Indeed, the creation of the Home Affairs portfolio has been an unmitigated disaster for immigration policy and administration. A standalone immigration department, as established by Arthur Calwell, should be reconsidered.

Finally, it is essential the Australian public can properly monitor whether the new migration strategy is being effectively delivered. The Government should make a clear commitment to regular publication of data on key indicators of the health of the visa system in a manner the public can easily access and understand.

Development of a comprehensive migration strategy is a complex and difficult task but also a crucially important one for Australias future. To her credit, Minister ONeil has committed herself to this. Only time will tell if she and her successors can deliver.